General Streaming and VR Discussion

[leech]

13 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

This is similar to the spin that came out when VR reemerged on the scene about 10 years ago. Plenty of claims that the traditional TV/console concept was dead, it was all VR from here on out. Yet here we are in the next generation and Sony has barely mentioned the PSVR for the PS5, Microsoft has abandoned HoloLens for consumers, Nintendo has better things to do, Google dropped their VR support last year. While there are some new HMDs on the horizon, it's still very far and away from becoming mainstream or replacing consoles like I remember reading about.  

More like 5 years ago (crazy to think 2016 when the first HTC Vive was released and the Oculus Rift CV1 finally came out.  Previous to that it was 'beta').  But hey, ignore all the people who have VR hardware about how freaking amazing it is.  Has it hit mainstream yet?  No, simply because of the price of GOOD VR.  Google dropped their VR support because it was the equivalent of those old Kaleidoscopes with maybe some accelerometer tricks. 

 

Half-Life: Alyx was amazing.  Pretty much shows what VR even in these early days of the tech getting 'good enough'.  Give it a few more years when the bigger game studios start hopping on board, and it'll really take off better.  Also, Sony has actually announced a new PSVR for the PS5.  Supposed to come out in 2022, if I recall.

[Keatah]

21 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

This is similar to the spin that came out when VR reemerged on the scene about 10 years ago. Plenty of claims that the traditional TV/console concept was dead, it was all VR from here on out. Yet here we are in the next generation and Sony has barely mentioned the PSVR for the PS5, Microsoft has abandoned HoloLens for consumers, Nintendo has better things to do, Google dropped their VR support last year. While there are some new HMDs on the horizon, it's still very far and away from becoming mainstream or replacing consoles like I remember reading about.  

Just that these technologies have short shelf life is a deterrent in and of itself. At least for me. Not interested in continually beta testing pet projects of companies.

 

Outside of specialized applications and simulations, VR is a dead end. An impractical 1992 Lawnmowerman hollywood creation. An impracticality being dragged through the mud in attempt to wipe the pigshit off. Not interested in bulky glasses and weird headgear and restrictive controls.. Not interested in isolated experiences. Nor the strange distorted perspectives that are over-emphasized in attempt to create an immersive world.

 

It's all flash in the pan, with the wow factor lasting about a day. Imagine all the thousands of dollars I'd've wasted by buying each VR offering. Imagine for me because I can't because I didn't!

Edited May 30, 2021 by Keatah

[Lord Mushroom]

3 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

 

Stadia has been the face of stream gaming, operated by one of the best resourced companies on the planet. Yet they're stumbling hard with it and things aren't getting better for them.

Being "the first" is no guarantee that you will be the one to succeed. Playstation Now and Xbox Game Pass are in a much better situation as far as I can tell. Stadia is more of a dark horse at the moment.

 

10 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

or that obtaining such service for 4k gaming is anything near affordable. Maybe decades from now, but by the next console generation? Lol, sure.

It is currently possible to play 1080p on Playstation Now with only a 5 Mbit connection. It won´t be many years before those who today can afford to buy the latest games will be able to stream 4k. Some already can from Stadia.

 

The development of the internet speed has been enormous. Going from being able to stream 1080p to being able to stream 4k is a relatively small step. 

[leech]

2 minutes ago, Keatah said:

Just that these technologies have short shelf life is a deterrent in and of itself. At least for me. Not interested in continually beta testing pet projects of companies.

 

Outside of specialized applications and simulations, VR is a dead end. An impractical 1992 Lawnmowerman hollywood creation. Not interested in bulky glasses and weird headgear. Not interested in isolated experiences. Nor the weird distorted perspectives that are over-emphasized in attempt to create an immersive world.

 

It's all flash in the pan, with the wow factor lasting about a day. Imagine all the thousands of dollars I'd've wasted by buying each VR offering. Imagine for me because I can't because I didn't!

There are 100% things you can do in a VR game or even utility that you simply can't do in a non-VR environment.  https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2021/05/vr-is-absolutely-insane-i-am-officially-a-convert-and-it-works-mostly-great-on-linux

I still play Elite: Dangerous in VR... Which is amazing in VR.  Not sure what you're talking about with distorted perspectives, that's fixed depending on the game (some may be sort of funky).  Also they aren't all isolated experiences, they do have multiplayer games.    Anyhow, not trying to convince anyone of anything, just trying it out is generally good enough (unless you're part of the population that just wants to yack after putting on a headset. 

[Keatah]

I guess consumer VR isn't evolved enough for me. Won't discount that it won't become more usable and important in the future. Just not today.

 

I rarely write off a technology. I just say make it better. Make it appealing and affordable to me. It's like with streaming, it's affordable no doubt. But annoying to micromanage all the accounts. Not adopting till they can fix the annoyance part. How they do that, I don't know. Maybe aggregate it all in one or something? Don't know. The onus is on them.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Keatah

[Shaggy the Atarian]

1 hour ago, leech said:

More like 5 years ago (crazy to think 2016 when the first HTC Vive was released and the Oculus Rift CV1 finally came out.  Previous to that it was 'beta').  But hey, ignore all the people who have VR hardware about how freaking amazing it is.  Has it hit mainstream yet?  No, simply because of the price of GOOD VR.  Google dropped their VR support because it was the equivalent of those old Kaleidoscopes with maybe some accelerometer tricks. 

IIRC, it was around 2012 that Lucky Palmer popped up on the scene and started the ball rolling, and that's when you had people proclaiming that consoles were assuredly dead because of "how freaking amazing [VR] is"

 

There was a business that started in 2016 just a few stores down from my arcade - they were offering VR to the masses for a relatively cheap starting fee. They setup some locations at different malls around Utah, they were riding the hype. Before the pandemic started though, they ended up closing all of their stores because the money wasn't there. The owner told me how much he made in Christmas 2019, which was the best month I'd ever seen at my arcade, and I made $10k more than he did.

 

There was a pretty cool concept that started here in Utah called The Void. Was the most immersive VR I ever used. But despite having a very good concept and enormous funding from the likes of Google, Disney and others(even having a star facility setup at Disney Springs in Orlando), they just went bankrupt. Yeah, someone else is looking to take their place, but just because something is amazing doesn't guarantee it'll be a success.

Quote

Give it a few more years when the bigger game studios start hopping on board, and it'll really take off better.

This circles us back to "this is the year of Linux!" It's said about Linux, it's said about VR, said about game streaming, will be said about the VCS I'm sure.

 

Quote

Half-Life: Alyx was amazing.  Pretty much shows what VR even in these early days of the tech getting 'good enough'.    Also, Sony has actually announced a new PSVR for the PS5.  Supposed to come out in 2022, if I recall.

At the moment, VR has had Alyx and Beat Saber as the "big" things that draw people to it (I've also heard some good stuff about Elite as you mentioned, although talking about it from the perspective of: If you approach some random person on the street and ask them to name a VR game, the most likely answers would be HL:Alyx or Beat Saber).

 

They are two great games, but that's not enough to drive adoption to the point where it overcomes the issues in price, reliability, health (vertigo and/or skin issues - even the brand new Oculus Quest 2 is causing problems with some people), etc. A lot of people have gone bankrupt rolling the dice on VR so far, and while it's not going away, companies see that and decide they'll keep waiting or take the cautious approach. It's not a lock that VR will become like it was portrayed in Ready Player One (and we could say the same of game streaming - maybe it will, but not any time soon)

Edited May 30, 2021 by Shaggy the Atarian

[Keatah]

26 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

..they just went bankrupt. Yeah, someone else is looking to take their place, but just because something is amazing doesn't guarantee it'll be a success.

Yup. So many things are indeed amazing. Yet 99% of the population hasn't heard of them, let alone tried them. And certainly not potential consumers of them.

 

Quote

This circles us back to "this is the year of Linux!" It's said about Linux, it's said about VR, said about game streaming, will be said about the VCS I'm sure.

This is the year of (insert techy item here) is such an unpredictable forecast of success. Even the advent and takeover of storage by SSD was slow. Happened over a wide timeframe. Wide enough that it seemed a slow adoption. There was no fanfare. No carnival barker. Except for what tech journals were preaching. But then no one pays attention to it because they're busy filtering it all out! So "year of" = "ho-hum". A ho minus the humming, same level of excitement.

 

Quote

A lot of people have gone bankrupt rolling the dice on VR so far, and while it's not going away, companies see that and decide they'll keep waiting or take the cautious approach. It's not a lock that VR will become like it was portrayed in Ready Player One (and we could say the same of game streaming - maybe it will, but not any time soon)

God I hope it doesn't become like Ready Player One. We don't need technology building yet another level in the house of cards that passes for present-day first-world society. A tiny chip shortage going on right now has raised the average price of a used car to just under $30,000. Imagine how society would collapse if chips weren't made for 6-months!?!?

 

Companies should wait till they can make a practical and important VR product. Meantime I'm happy to watch youtube videos of it. Enjoy it (or laugh at it) vicariously.

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Keatah

[Keatah]

18 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

There was a pretty cool concept that started here in Utah called The Void. Was the most immersive VR I ever used.

I clicked on the link to see and was blasted with an ad for colonoscopies. So I closed the page. Not sure it's worth my time to try again. Though I could copy the link and download the vid without an ad. But that would take too much time. I'll have to imagine what the void is - likely a big black area of nothing comes to mind.

 

18 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

But despite having a very good concept and enormous funding from the likes of Google, Disney and others(even having a star facility setup at Disney Springs in Orlando), they just went bankrupt. Yeah, someone else is looking to take their place, but just because something is amazing doesn't guarantee it'll be a success.

My emulation rigs and SFF PCs are amazing. Yet no one gives a rat's ass. Yup!

[Keatah]

40 minutes ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

At the moment, VR has had Alyx and Beat Saber. Two great games, but that's not enough to drive adoption to the point where it overcomes the issues in price, reliability, health (vertigo and/or skin issues - even the brand new Oculus Quest 2 is causing problems with some people), etc.

Not only that, but the facebook requirement irritates my brain too.

 

They say the experts they consulted say it isn't an allergic reaction to the chemicals used in the manufacturing of the device. But rather maybe reactions between the headset and cosmetics? Don't want all that crap anywhere near me. Cosmetics or especially shit that makes cosmetics make your skin swell up. Must be really funky plastics and vocs to cause that!

 

How can they say it isn't an allergic reaction anyways. If not an allergic reaction, THEN WHAT IS IT??

Edited May 30, 2021 by Keatah

[Shaggy the Atarian]

1 minute ago, Keatah said:

I clicked on the link to see and was blasted with an ad for colonoscopies. So I closed the page. Not sure it's worth my time to try again. Though I could copy the link and download the vid without an ad. But that would take too much time. I'll have to imagine what the void is - likely a big black area of nothing comes to mind.

Get yourself a good ad blocker! Then again, I thought I had one and it looks like YouTube changed something recently so I'm seeing their ads again, which I hadn't in a long time. Maybe this will work, it plays for me without an ad:

 

 

If that's still a problem, here's a link to an article discussing The Void, although mainly their woes. The sum of it was: They were the closest thing we'd seen to a holodeck in terms of "Mixed Reality." It was location-based VR, but you had a maze you would walk through. Inside the headset, the virtual was mapped over the physical, so you could reach out and touch the walls, feel heat from a fire (from an installed heater), sit down, etc. It felt a lot like going into a lazer tag arena with a VR headset, backpack and all.

 

It was cool, but it was far from perfect - the first issue I had when I used it was that where your brain thinks the walls are and where they actually are are a little different (by a few inches). That sort of broke the immersion. There were some other little problems, although I did play a pre-Disney build, so maybe they figured it out.

 

That all said, while the pandemic was blamed for their failure, there were main stories coming out in 2019 (by all accounts, a pretty good year for most businesses) about some troubles The Void was having. Their pricing structure didn't jive with the enormous costs it took to constantly operate.

 

On a tangent, I've tried a lot of different VR things, but I'm in the part of the populace that has issues in using the tech (somewhere around 10% of the pop will have an issue - that's never good for widespread adoption). Even when using the "non-vertigo" inducing, high refresh HMDs, I would still get a little bit of vertigo - after getting Lasik, that also helped, but no matter what system I use, I end up enjoying a migraine for the rest of the day after I use any VR, even if it's just for a few minutes. Normally I don't have migraines at all. 

[Shaggy the Atarian]

1 minute ago, Keatah said:

Not only that, but the facebook requirement irritates my brain too.

 

They say the experts they consulted say it isn't an allergic reaction to the chemicals used in the manufacturing of the device. But rather maybe reactions between the headset and cosmetics? Don't want all that crap anywhere near me. Cosmetics or especially shit that makes cosmetics make your skin swell up. Must be really funky plastics and vocs to cause that!

Oh, I'm sure that Facebook wouldn't cut corners on their manufacturing quality!

 

One of the unsaid secrets of VR that the spinsters really don't like to acknowledge is that wearable tech is a vector for transmitting certain nasty things - pink eye is common (even with "sanitized" HMDs, if you're not incredibly throrough, something can survive and jump into your eye. Talk about immersion!). No, not everyone that uses VR is getting pink eye, but it can happen.

 

Or worse, you can get your eye socket crushed: 

 

 

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

47 minutes ago, Keatah said:

I clicked on the link to see and was blasted with an ad for colonoscopies.

??

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by OldSchoolRetroGamer

[toiletunes]

1 hour ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

...as I recall, it had to do with Atari being cheapskates and refusing to fund the necessary work that was needed to complete the game and the server side services, which needed constant maintenance and that also meant money, which Atari didn't want to supply...

 

This sounds very familiar, has Atari ever done anything like this before?

[Shaggy the Atarian]

38 minutes ago, toiletunes said:

 

This sounds very familiar, has Atari ever done anything like this before?

Why of course not!

 

[leech]

2 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Why of course not!

 

I'm a Mog, half-man, half-dog, I'm my own bes friend.

[+x=usr(1536)]

16 hours ago, leech said:

Really depends on where you are located.  With the almost monopoly of comcast in the US, if you actually have requirements that they won't provide without requiring an expensive business account, then you're left with much slower access.

True, but as a counterpoint: we're seeing significant effort being made by our State's two main utility companies (as well as most of the smaller independent ones) to roll out rural fibre with 1Gbit being the de facto standard.  Sure, there will be variations in that data rate as well some very remote places that are way down the list to get it, but the buildout is taking place at an extremely fast rate.

 

It's weird - I've watched ILECs take 90-plus days to activate a Metro-E circuit from a CO to a building that was already lit for fibre with the ILEC, but am seeing people get rural fibre circuits trenched, pulled, and activated within 14 days of approving service.  Amazing what can be done when the utility wants to amortise out their fibre trunks ASAfP.

[+x=usr(1536)]

22 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

The point is that streaming is getting better. At some point you will get a better experience streaming a game on a $50 box than playing it on a $500 box.

Except that the market has become accustomed to consoles with a $500 at-launch price point.  There is no way in hell that either Sony or Microsoft would do anything to deliberately let that number slip in the public's mind now that the expectation has been set.  Even Nintendo - who sell in a lower price bracket than the other two - have no desire to see it fall because it will ultimately hurt their sales by reducing the margin on the less-expensive hardware that they're selling as the other two encroach on their price point.

 

That's without getting into the backend infrastructure costs of building and maintaining a cloud capable of supporting a streaming platform.  Neither Nintendo nor Sony are cloud infrastructure providers, so it's reasonable to think that they would be reluctant to place that much investment in a device that's going to be pitted against two companies with a massive lead in that regard.  Again, the margin just isn't there on lower-end devices to make up for the costs of entry, and people are becoming less- and less-enamoured of subscriptions in general.

 

VDI infrastructure is not cheap, and neither is building it on a massive scale - but that's essentially what's being proposed anytime someone mentions streaming as the future of gaming hardware and software.  Maybe it ultimately will be, but certainly not as the landscape looks now.  There are just too many variables to be solved to make it a viable proposition within the next several years, and that's before we start dealing with the problems posed by crappy consumer-grade Internet connectivity.

[+x=usr(1536)]

16 hours ago, Lord Mushroom said:

The development of the internet speed has been enormous. Going from being able to stream 1080p to being able to stream 4k is a relatively small step. 

 

[godslabrat]

Seems like there's an easy solution here.  Use VR to let people feel like they're in a colonoscopy, and stream it over Atari VCS.

 

Everyone wins.

[Lord Mushroom]

20 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

This is similar to the spin that came out when VR reemerged on the scene about 10 years ago. Plenty of claims that the traditional TV/console concept was dead, it was all VR from here on out. Yet here we are in the next generation and Sony has barely mentioned the PSVR for the PS5, Microsoft has abandoned HoloLens for consumers, Nintendo has better things to do, Google dropped their VR support last year. While there are some new HMDs on the horizon, it's still very far and away from becoming mainstream or replacing consoles like I remember reading about.  

I didn´t believe the hype at the time. Sure, the technology was cool, but the games looked boring. I like the idea of being "in the game" as opposed to looking at it, but they need to figure out how to make good games for it before it becomes popular. 

[Lord Mushroom]

20 hours ago, leech said:

Ha, not a whole lot.  10 years ago I had 20 up / 40 down.  Now I'm at 5 up and 60 down (and they had to give me a double connection @30 each to get to 60.  So no, it isn't much better than 10 years ago.

Ironically, my connection isn´t much better 10 years later either, but we are amongst the exceptions. The average person with internet has a much faster connection than he/she did 10 years ago.

[Lord Mushroom]

4 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Except that the market has become accustomed to consoles with a $500 at-launch price point.  There is no way in hell that either Sony or Microsoft would do anything to deliberately let that number slip in the public's mind now that the expectation has been set. 

They aren´t setting the launch prizes that high to squeeze money out of consumers. They are doing it because that is what they cost to produce. Sony and Microsoft are competing vigorously in the gaming sector. The Xbox 360 was cheaper than the Playstation 3, and did much better than it otherwise would have done as a result. Xbox set the price of its streaming service(s) much lower than Playstation´s, but Playstation responded. It is not like the App Store and Google Play, where they "agree" to keep royalties at 30%.

 

If Sony and/or Microsoft could make a $50 box, which can do the same or more than the competitor´s $500 box, they would do it in a heartbeat. 

 

4 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

That's without getting into the backend infrastructure costs of building and maintaining a cloud capable of supporting a streaming platform.  Neither Nintendo nor Sony are cloud infrastructure providers, so it's reasonable to think that they would be reluctant to place that much investment in a device that's going to be pitted against two companies with a massive lead in that regard.

But Microsoft is. Also, they don´t need to do that themselves. They could use the cloud infrastructure of others.

 

4 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

Again, the margin just isn't there on lower-end devices to make up for the costs of entry,

1) Video game companies make their money (mainly) on the games, not the device it is played on.

2) A device maker doesn´t have to create their own game streaming service for it, but can offer the services of others and/or their already existing one.

 

5 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

and people are becoming less- and less-enamoured of subscriptions in general.

Maybe they are not so enthusiastic about subscriptions as they once were, but they still buy them. Also, a game streaming services doesn´t have to involve a subscription. Geforce Now and Stadia have a free option.

[Lord Mushroom]

5 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

 

I had a very weak internet connection 22 years ago (relative to others), and I have a very weak internet connection now. But my current connection is about 200 times faster than it was 22 years ago. That is an enormous difference.

 

To go from streaming 1080p to 4k, you need to increase speed to about 5 times faster. That is a relatively small step in comparison.

[leech]

20 hours ago, Shaggy the Atarian said:

Oh, I'm sure that Facebook wouldn't cut corners on their manufacturing quality!

 

One of the unsaid secrets of VR that the spinsters really don't like to acknowledge is that wearable tech is a vector for transmitting certain nasty things - pink eye is common (even with "sanitized" HMDs, if you're not incredibly throrough, something can survive and jump into your eye. Talk about immersion!). No, not everyone that uses VR is getting pink eye, but it can happen.

 

Or worse, you can get your eye socket crushed: 

 

 

Ha, yeah I Don think I would ever go to a VR arcade, someone sneezing into their hand and playing a normal arcade game is gross enough.  Absorbing in someone's sweat from the face pads... when I first got my Vive I brought it to the office and one guy sweat profusely in the foam pad.  We had to stop playing so we could wash / dry it out, so I ended up getting the pleather ones.  Much easier to wipe off.

[leech]

8 hours ago, x=usr(1536) said:

True, but as a counterpoint: we're seeing significant effort being made by our State's two main utility companies (as well as most of the smaller independent ones) to roll out rural fibre with 1Gbit being the de facto standard.  Sure, there will be variations in that data rate as well some very remote places that are way down the list to get it, but the buildout is taking place at an extremely fast rate.

 

It's weird - I've watched ILECs take 90-plus days to activate a Metro-E circuit from a CO to a building that was already lit for fibre with the ILEC, but am seeing people get rural fibre circuits trenched, pulled, and activated within 14 days of approving service.  Amazing what can be done when the utility wants to amortise out their fibre trunks ASAfP.

In Utah it's pretty crap.  Basically to the South in the Orem/Provo area you can get gigabit fibre.  To the North in SLC, you can get gigabit.  In the rural areas... not so much.  At my old place I remember CenturyLink telling me they hoped to get gigabit within a year or two.. that was about 2010-11?  And it never happened up to the 7 years later that I was there...

 

They just don't have the incentive for some reason to upgrade residential areas enough.  Or they have to get the cities to agree to it, and there's definitely cable lobbying going on there...